Group buying it may sell naming rights to help fund renovation

Mar. 11, 2012

Loading Photo Galleries ...

Written by

Barry M. Horstman

The group that hopes to buy Music Hall “absolutely” plans to consider naming rights as a source of revenue, said spokesman Joe Shields. / Enquirer file photo

Who are they?

The Music Hall Revitalization Co. Inc., the group that hopes to buy Music Hall, includes some big donors. See who they are._

More

ADVERTISEMENT

Cincinnati’s Music Hall has been known by that elegantly simple name since it opened 134 years ago, little more than a decade after the Civil War ended.

Most Cincinnati City Council members – and perhaps most Greater Cincinnatians – would prefer to keep it that way. Some, though, worry that the proposed sale to a private group that plans to pursue a $165 million renovation could see the name change through a naming rights deal.

“I’d hate to see a big sign on the front of Music Hall saying, ‘Frito-Lay Hall,’” said City Councilman Cecil Thomas. “This is a civic jewel, and we want to preserve its historic nature.”

The Music Hall Revitalization Co. Inc., the group that hopes to buy the Over-the-Rhine building and assume responsibility for the renovation and future operating and maintenance costs, “absolutely” plans to consider naming rights as a source of revenue, said spokesman Joe Shields.

City officials acknowledge that naming rights for Music Hall potentially could generate millions of dollars, as they have for stadiums, arenas, entertainment facilities and other venues across the country.

Many city leaders, however, hope in this instance that heritage trumps financial considerations.

“I’d have a great deal of problems with changing the name,” said Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls. “There’s a limit on the commercialization of public assets.”

With the current proposed sale agreement not addressing the naming rights issue, some council members would prefer to see language added that would either block any change or at a minimum give council veto power over any such deal.

Naming rights are emblematic of the kind of issues on which City Hall could lose direct authority if the sale of Music Hall is approved.

Some council members, while saying they would find a name change distasteful, add that if the sale occurs, the city may have to be realistic about how much say it would have on such matters in the future.

“I don’t want Music Hall to look like a NASCAR automobile,” said Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld. “But I’m also open-minded about possible sources of revenue that could make this work.”

Councilman Wendell Young added: “I’m a native Cincinnatian. For me, it’s always been Music Hall and always will be. But I’d be open to other ideas, if that’s the only option. Preserving and improving the building is what’s important. I just hope we don’t have to change the name to do that.”

Even without a name change, some council members concede that the sale of Music Hall would come at the expense of some civic pride – though they hasten to add that they believe most Cincinnatians probably do not know that the city has owned the structure for most of its history.

“In a perfect world where money was not a problem, I think most people probably would prefer that the city continue to own it as a matter of civic pride,” Young said. “But it’s not a perfect world. As a practical matter, I’m not sure it matters to most people who owns it.”

The continued and upgraded existence of Music Hall, Qualls added, likely matters more to most people than the ownership of the deed for 1241 Elm Street.

“The civic pride has more to do with Music Hall being there to be enjoyed now and being a legacy we can pass on to future generations,” she said. “It would be nice to pass it on as Music Hall.”